Written Reasons for Sentencing

Ontario Court of Justice East Region

Between: Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Claudette Cardinal Accused

Before: Mr. Justice Allan G. Letourneau

Written Reasons for Sentencing released: April 13, 2018

Counsel:

• Gerard Laarhuis, for the Crown
• Matt Hodgson, for the Accused

Introduction

[1] By written trial judgment on January 19, 2018 I convicted the accused of assault with a weapon and breach of probation. At the request of Ms. Cardinal, the sentencing was delayed to March 12, 2018. On that date I heard oral submissions and reserved my sentencing decision to this date to allow me to fully immerse myself in the sentencing materials and counsels' submissions.

[2] Twaddle JA, of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, described a sentencing judge's task in this way:

In the pursuit of justice, nothing is more elusive than a fit sentence. A sentencing judge's head must spin when attempting to take all relevant factors into account. At the very minimum, a sentencing judge must have regard to the nature of the crime, the prescribed maximum penalty (and minimum if any), the circumstances in which the crime was committed and those of the offender. R. v. Shalley, 2005 MBCA 150, para. 13.

[3] These reasons explain why I have imposed the sentences that I have in this matter.

The Offences

[4] On the date of the incident (June 22, 2016) Ms. Cardinal and the victim, Korine Cunliffe, were housemates. Each had their own private bedroom. They shared the common areas of the residence. There were several reasons why Ms. Cardinal was very upset with Ms. Cunliffe on that date. Certainly, one reason was her belief that both had (separately) slept with the same male.

[5] Twice, on that date, the police were summoned to the residence.

[6] On their first attendance, at 12:36 a.m., Ms. Cardinal was highly intoxicated from the consumption of alcohol. Ms. Cunliffe was in her room sleeping. When the police woke her, and spoke to her, they believed that she was sober. The police warned Ms. Cardinal to leave Ms. Cunliffe alone and that she would be charged with a criminal offence if the police were called back to deal with the situation.

[7] Prior to the police re-attending the residence (shortly before 2:00 a.m.) Ms. Cardinal entered Ms. Cunliffe's bedroom and attacked her in her sleep. The circumstances of the attack are as follows:

I find that Ms. Cardinal entered Ms. Cunliffe's bedroom with the intent to assault her. Ms. Cunliffe was asleep when Ms. Cardinal commenced the attack. The assault included at least two strikes with the rope to Ms. Cunliffe's head, and more than one punch to her face. A short time later, Ms. Cardinal returned to Ms. Cunliffe's bedroom, knocked the cellphone out of her hand, pushed her to the floor, and struck her one further time. The assault also resulted in scratches on Ms. Cunliffe's right arm, hand, and right front shoulder and neck area.

I find that Ms. Cardinal's punches to Ms. Cunliffe's face caused the bruising and swelling under both of her eyes. The photographic evidence shows that there is considerable swelling under her right eye. (From my trial Reasons for Judgment).

[8] The rope that she used was an exercise device that had metal clips attached to each of its ends.

[9] Ms. Cunliffe's physical injuries were as follows:

Nine staples were required to close the wounds on her head, seven stitches closed the wound to her right forehead, and five stitches closed the wounds to her right ear. As well, her eyes were black and blue with significant swelling under her right eye, she had several scratches on her right front shoulder and right arm, and, she testified that the bruising on the back of the right side of her neck (as shown in Exhibit 4, photograph #6) was caused by Ms. Cardinal grabbing her neck. (From my trial Reasons for Judgment).

[10] Given Ms. Cardinal's consumption of alcohol on that date, she was found guilty of breaching the abstention of alcohol condition on her probation order that was in effect at that time.

The Offender

[11] Forty-eight year old Claudette Cardinal is an indigenous person. Her biological mother and father are Cree and they are descendants of the "signatories to Treaties 6 (1876) and 8 (1889) of the infamous 'Numbered Treaties' which ceded most of the prairies to the Canadian government". As such, they are known as "Treaty Indians". (Exhibit 1, 2015 Gladue Report, p. 2)

[12] Ms. Cardinal's prior Criminal Record is as follows:

• 2012 - break, enter & commit indictable offence - 75 days (+ 44 days PSC)
• assault bodily harm - 75 days (+ 44 days PSC), concurrent, Probation, 109 Order
• Breach Recogn. X 2 - 75 days (each count), concurrent & concurrent
• Nov. 18/15 - Accessory to Murder - time served (4.5 years PSC)

[13] On September 14, 2016 Ms. Cardinal was awarded a Certificate of Achievement for completing the Elizabeth Fry "Moving Forward: Creating Lasting Change" program. The program was primarily focused on identifying bad situations and developing ways to avoid those situations and to problem solve.

[14] In 2017 she received a Certificate of Achievement for completing an Anger Management Course.

[15] Following her arrest on these charges she attended alcohol and substance abuse relapse prevention groups. At first she attended twice per week. Then, once a week. Now, whenever she feels the need to attend.

[16] She has made progress towards obtaining her (regular, not equivalent to) high school diploma. At the time of the sentencing submissions she only needed 3 credits to obtain her degree. Once she has that degree she is able to access financial support for her post-secondary education through her aboriginal band in Alberta.

[17] By letter dated January 24, 2018 The Point Restaurant in Sydenham, Ontario has offered her employment in their restaurant. However, she is not able to accept the offer until she knows the sentences that I will impose in this matter.

[18] During the last 18 months Ms. Cardinal has resided in a rooming house in Kingston. By all accounts, she has a good relationship with the other four residents of the home.

[19] When she met her current boyfriend, Jamie Sells, she immediately told him about her criminal history, that she remains on a criminal bail order (recognizance), and that she does not want to be in a romantic relationship with anyone who drinks alcohol because of her difficulties with alcohol.

[20] Mr. Sells lives with his elderly mother (who requires assistance given her physical limitations), his sister (who suffers from chronic pain), and his sister's 10 year old daughter. Ms. Cardinal has a very good relationship with Mr. Sells and the other family members that he resides with.

[21] Ms. Cardinal was released from custody (15 actual PSC days) on a bail Recognizance on July 7, 2016 with conditions that included that she report, daily, to the Bail Supervision Program; that she abstain from the consumption of alcohol; that she be in her residence, daily between 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.; and, that she attend programming.

[22] On September 6, 2016 her bail was varied in one respect only: her reporting to the supervision program was reduced to once a week. By all accounts, she has complied strictly with her bail conditions.

The Gladue Report

[23] The Gladue Report filed during the sentencing hearing was prepared in connection with the 2015 accessory to murder sentence proceedings. The following is highlighted from the report:

• When Ms. Cardinal was 5 or 6 years old, she, and her two (older) siblings (Loretta and Cynthia) were taken into care. For the next decade all three where shuffled through a number of foster homes both as a group, and separately (p.2);

• her parents' marriage was short-lived and riven by addictions and violence. Ms. Cardinal last saw her father when she was 2 years old. Three years later her mother left the children with Child Protection and she never saw her mother for the next 10 years. She learned during the preparation of the 2015 Gladue Report that her mother had passed away. She had not seen her mother in 14 years (p. 3);

• Ms. Cardinal remains largely estranged from her family and her four children (by three fathers) (p. 3);

• in their Aboriginal culture "the Sun Dance was a time for reinforcing social ties, courting, sharing the pipe, smudging and sweats. As such, it was a time for celebrating Cree life, spirituality and culture. The Sun Dance was central to Cree life until 1884, when it was banned by the Canadian government through its 1885 Indian Act. The prohibition was not lifted until 1921" (p. 5);

• "After Confederation, the Canadian government set its sights upon Cree land and Cree culture, the former were secured through Treaty 6 and Treaty 8; the latter through Crown policies emphasizing 'civilization and assimilation' and executed primarily through the Indian Act and Indian Residential Schools" (p. 5-6);

• the trauma resulting from generations of land loss, systematic erosion of social, cultural and political organization, and Indian Residential Schooling, has resulted in pathologies such as depression, self-destructive behaviour, suicidal ideations, anxiety, low self-esteem, anger and difficulty recognizing and expressing emotions. Those trauma responses further induce substance abuse and addictions which often act as a means to avoid painful feelings (p. 6-7);

• while in foster care Ms. Cardinal (and her sisters) experienced terrible abuse (including sexual abuse) and neglect;

• Ms. Cardinal recalls her father's severe abuse of her mother. She was 2 years of age when she witnessed the last incident that culminated with her father, crying on his knees in the yard, with other family members pointing their guns at him and threatening to kill him (p. 8); and,

• at one point when they were struggling to feed their children Ms. Cardinal's partner (Joseph) suggested that she pursue stripping. She did work as a stripper and during that employment they were able to support themselves without social assistance. When that relationship ended Ms. Cardinal became suicidal and lost the care of her children (p. 13-14).

The Purpose and Principles of Sentencing

(a) The Fundamental Principle of Proportionality

[24] Every sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender:

The fundamental principle of sentencing under s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code is that a "sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender" (emphasis added). This requires a sentencing court to engage in a "highly individualized exercise tailored" not only to the gravity of the offence and the harm caused by the crime but also to the blameworthiness of the particular offender: R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773, at para. 43. "No one sentencing objective trumps the others and it falls to the sentencing judge to determine which objective or objectives merit the greatest weight, given the particulars of the case": R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, at para. 43.

R. v. C.S., 2018 ONSC 1141, 2018 OJ 909 SCJ, para. 48.

(b) The Gladue Factor and Principles

[25] Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code provides that a sentencing court shall consider all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community, when sentencing all offenders with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders (emphasis added).

[26] Section 718.2(e) is remedial in nature. Its purpose is to "ameliorate the serious problem of the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in prisons" (R. v. Kreko, 2016 ONCA 367, 2016 OJ 2552 OCA, para. 19) and to "encourage the sentencing court to have recourse to a more restorative approach to sentencing" given the "systemic disadvantage suffered by aboriginals in the Canadian community" (R. v. Carriere, 2002 OJ 1429 OCA, para. 17). Nevertheless, "718.2(e) cannot mandate a discount from a proportionate sentence": R. v. C.S., supra, para. 54.

[27] As the Ontario Court of Appeal noted in R. v. Pelletier, 2012 ONCA 566, at para. 143:

It does not follow that Aboriginal offenders must always be sentenced in a way that accords greatest weight to the principles of restorative justice and less weight to objectives like deterrence, denunciation and separation: Gladue, at para. 78. Although not a general principle, in practical terms, the more violent and serious an offender's crime, the more likely that the terms of imprisonment for Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals will be close to each other, if not the same: Gladue, at para. 79; Wells, at para. 42; R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, (2012), 280 C.C.C. (3d) 265, at para. 85.

[28] For an aboriginal offender's background to be relevant in the sentencing analysis as a Gladue factor more is required than proof of indigenous lineage: "… the systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal people in Canadian society must have impacted the offender's life in a way that (1) bears on moral blameworthiness, or (2) indicates which types of sentencing objectives should be prioritized in the offender's case": R. v. F.H.L., 2018 ONCA 83, paras. 38 & 40.

[29] This approach involves the sentencing judge taking judicial notice of the adverse effects (lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse/suicide/incarceration) on our indigenous people of the systemic and background factors such as colonialism, displacement, and residential schools. Furthermore, the judge must assess whether those factors played a part (i.e. "impacted an Aboriginal offender's own life experiences") in the commission of the offending conduct or informs "the sentencing objectives that should be prioritized": R. v. F.H.L., supra, paras. 43, 44 & 45.

[30] Systemic and background factors do not excuse nor justify the criminal conduct. Such factors are only relevant to the determination of the offender's level of culpability and whether restorative or retributive sentencing objectives should prevail: R. v. F.H.L., supra, para. 47.

[31] Although each sentencing, including the sentencing of an aboriginal offender, is a unique balancing of all of the relevant factors and circumstances:

Where the offence is a violent and serious one and the principles of denunciation and deterrence dominate the sentencing calculus, the appropriate sentence will often not differ as between aboriginal and non-aboriginal offenders: R. v. Wells (2000), 2000 SCC 10, 141 CCC (3d) 368 at 386 (S.C.C.).

[32] However, it would be an error of law to conclude that Gladue principles do not apply to serious offences. They do: R. v. Ipeelee, supra; R. v. Kreko, supra, para. 23; R. v. C.S., supra, para. 64.

[33] The first stage of the Gladue (R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688) sentencing analysis requires the court to consider the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular aboriginal offender before the courts: R. v. Macintyre-Syrette, 2018 ONCA 259, para. 13.

[34] Given that it would be "extremely difficult for an Aboriginal offender to ever establish a direct causal link between his circumstances and his offending" (R. v. Ipeelee, supra, para. 83), and given the "devastating intergenerational effects of the collective experiences of Aboriginal peoples", (R. v. Ipeelee, supra, para. 82) an accused is not required to show any such causal connection.

[35] At the second stage the court is focused on the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions that may be appropriate given the offender's particular aboriginal heritage or connection (R. v. Macintyre-Syrette, supra, para. 13) and that includes—if the offender "lives as a member of a discrete Indigenous community"—what "institutions exist within that community; and, whether there are specific proposals from community leadership or organizations for alternative sentencing to promote the reconciliation of the offender to his or her community" (R. v. Macintyre-Syrette, supra, para. 14).

[36] The required information to be contained in a Gladue report includes: (a) whether the accused is aboriginal (as per s. 25 of the Charter and s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982); (b) what band, community or reserve he/she comes from; (c) where he/she resides at the time of sentencing; (d) the existence of treatment facilities, justice committee(s), alternative measures, or community based programs available in the sentencing of the accused; (e) whether the principles of restorative justice would better promote the principles of denunciation, deterrence, crime prevention and the protection of the public as opposed to imprisonment; and, (f) what sentencing options exist in the accused's community and the "community at large": R. v. Macintyre-Syrette, supra, para. 15.

(c) Other Sentencing Requirements

[37] Given the dubious effectiveness of incarceration as a deterrent of future criminality, the general deterrence sentencing principle should not be given undue weight in the balancing of the sentencing factors: R. v. C.S., supra, para. 54.

[38] I am required to give due regard to s. 718 (the "purpose" of sentencing provision) and all of the other relevant sentencing principles contained in sections 718.01 to 718.2—and I have done so.

Victim Input

[39] On October 30, 2017 the victim, Ms. Cunliffe, inquired as to the status of these proceedings. As noted, my trial Judgment issued on January 19, 2018. Despite several attempts to reach her leading up to the date of the oral sentencing submissions, she could not be located. Nevertheless, I agree with Mr. Laarhuis, that during the course of the trial she described her physical injuries, and how traumatic the attack was for her, in considerable detail. I am satisfied that the physical and psychological effects of Ms. Cardinal's attack will continue to afflict Ms. Cunliffe for quite some time going forward.

The Sufficiency of the Sentencing Record

[40] In sentencing an aboriginal offender the court is required to determine if it has sufficient information to complete the Gladue analysis:

It was an error, however, for the sentencing judge to have proceeded with sentencing on the strength of the materials before him. The Gladue report gave insufficient assistance to the sentencing judge with respect to the second aspect of the Gladue analysis: of determining the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions that would be appropriate given the offender's connection to his specific Aboriginal community: Ipeelee, at para. 74. Section 718.2(e) imposes an "affirmative obligation" on sentencing judges to inquire into the relevant circumstances of the offender, including the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate because of his or her particular Aboriginal heritage or connection; either from the parties or on his or her own initiative, a sentencing judge "must be made aware of alternatives to incarceration that exist whether inside or outside the aboriginal community of the particular offender": R. v. Wells, 2000 SCC 10, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 207, at paras. 38, 54; Ipeelee, at para. 72, Gladue, at para. 84. This information was not made available to the sentencing judge in this case in either the pre-sentence report or the Gladue report.

R. v. Macintyre-Syrette, supra, para. 19.

[41] Despite the fact that Ms. Cardinal did not pursue a pre-sentence report, given the strength of the documentation that she filed (e.g. the Gladue Report, programming Certificates, character reference letters, letter confirming offer of employment) and the other information that her counsel presented during his oral submissions, I am satisfied that the record is sufficient to proceed with the sentencing.

[42] Ms. Cardinal resided in Belleville, Ontario when she was sentenced in 2012 (ABH) and when sentenced in 2015 (accessory to murder). As noted in the Gladue report, the connection that she had with her family and her indigenous community was largely severed when she was taken into protective care at 5 or 6 years of age. For the next decade, she, and her siblings, were shuffled through a number of foster and group homes. She has no relationship with one of her sisters (Cynthia) and rarely sees the other (Loretta). Her mother is deceased. She was 2 years old when she last saw her father. She is also estranged from her four children.

[43] As the Gladue report notes (p. 17), she has little, if any, direct connection to her Cree culture or community. The family dysfunction, and the resultant placement into care, substantially vitiated any such connection. Furthermore, as a young woman she internalized the racism she was subjected to and was ashamed of her indigenous heritage.

[44] She permanently resides in Kingston where she has an established relationship with Mr. Sells (who resides in Kingston). She has availed herself of this community's resources and services to her betterment. In short, her desire is to remain in this jurisdiction.

Ms. Cardinal's Sentencing Position

[45] Mr. Hodgson's primary sentencing position is that Ms. Cardinal should receive a time served sentence (15 days PSC enhanced to 23 days) plus probation. If there is to be a further period of custody, it should be by way of a conditional sentence order. If she is sentenced to a period of custody, other than pursuant to a conditional sentence order, Ms. Cardinal submits that it should not exceed 90 days (which she could serve intermittently on weekends). Otherwise, the jail sentence would threaten her continued progress regarding her programming and education.

[46] If she receives a jail sentence exceeding 90 days, she seeks to delay the start of the jail sentence for a few days to arrange her affairs.

The Crown's Sentencing Position

[47] Mr. Laarhuis submits that—taking into account the Gladue factors—Ms. Cardinal should receive a jail sentence (not a conditional sentence) in the 12 to 15 month range. He maintains that a conditional sentence order is not available on a proper weighing of the sentencing factors including the Gladue factors. Ultimately, such a sentence would violate the fundamental sentencing principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Sentencing Decision

[48] Ms. Cardinal's Gladue factors are assigned appreciable weight.

[49] In regards to the first stage, the lineage is conclusively established, as are the deleterious effects of the systemic and background factors such as colonialism, displacement, and residential schools. I have no doubt that the systemic and background factors placed great pressure on Ms. Cardinal's Cree community and their familial units. I am satisfied that those pressures played a significant role in what would become her parents' inability to properly care for her and her siblings, the result of which was the complete disintegration of their family unit and the isolation of the siblings from each other and their parents: Kreko, supra, para. 24.

[50] Clearly the systemic and background factors impacted her life in a way that contributed to her committing the offences that I am dealing with in these proceedings. Those circumstances diminish her moral culpability with respect to the offences which are the subject of this sentence hearing: R. v. Ipeelee, supra; R. v. C.S., supra, para. 73.

[51] As noted, her parents' marriage was short-lived and riven by addictions and violence. She was two when she last saw her father. It is evident that by age two she had witnessed far more violence, both verbal and physical, than many non-aboriginal Canadians experience in a lifetime. It is also evident that she experienced great deprivation, financially and otherwise.

[52] Given that the family unit disintegrated, completely and permanently, when she was 5 or 6 years of age, and given that she was shuffled around different homes while in care from that age until age 17, it is not an exaggeration to say that she grew up parentless.

[53] Sadly, Ms. Cardinal struggles with addiction issues. Sadly, she is essentially estranged from her four children. Sadly, she believes that her two daughters struggle with addiction issues. Her 26 year old son resides in North Bay and is not in contact with her. Her 9 year old son resides with his father in Belleville and Ms. Cardinal indicated in 2015 that she has "limited contact with him" (Gladue Report, p. 4).

[54] Not surprisingly, Ms. Cardinal has experienced many of the pathologies that are often associated with the colonial interference with our aboriginal peoples' traditional way of life: depression, self-destructive behaviour, suicidal thoughts and gestures (Ms. Cardinal has attempted to kill herself), and anger. Substance abuse and addictions are a common way of self-medication designed to dampen the weight of the pathologies.

[55] Despite the appreciable weight of the Gladue factors, a custodial sentence of less than 90 days of institutional custody (after credit for PSC and her bail conditions), would, in my view, violate the proportionality principle (s. 718.1).

[56] In the last 6 years Ms. Cardinal's criminal record reflects convictions for three separate incidents involving serious harm and violence: a 2012 conviction for assault bodily harm, a 2015 conviction for accessory to murder, and the assault offence involved in this sentence hearing.

[57] Ms. Cardinal's assault on Ms. Cunliffe has many aggravating features: she attacked her when she was sleeping; the attack was unprovoked; Ms. Cunliffe was a co-tenant; Ms. Cardinal used a weapon; and, Ms. Cardinal struck her in the head at least twice with the weapon causing Ms. Cunliffe serious injuries. Despite not being charged with assault causing bodily harm, there can be no doubt that Ms. Cunliffe did suffer bodily harm.

[58] Despite the appreciable weight of her Gladue factors, a proper weighing of all of the sentencing considerations leads me to conclude that the non-restorative sentencing objectives (e.g. denunciation, deterrence, separation from society, etc.) must be given paramount consideration with the restorative objectives being of subordinate status: R. v. Carriere, 2002 OJ 1429 OCA.

[59] If Ms. Cardinal was NOT an indigenous person I would have sentenced her to a 15 month institutional jail sentence for the assault offence.

[60] The Gladue factors and Ms. Cardinal's rehabilitation prospects are the strongest mitigating factors. Taking all of the aggravating and mitigating factors into account, I have determined that a just and fit sentence on the assault charge is a 225 day (i.e. 7 ½ months) institutional jail sentence, less her PSC credit (23 days), and less a credit of 15 days for her bail terms, plus 18 months' probation.

[61] In my view, this sentence is the least restrictive sentence that is reasonable in the circumstance and it is consistent with the harm occasioned by the offence after accounting for the weight of Ms. Cardinal's Gladue factors. This sentence should not act as a substantial obstacle to her continued efforts at rehabilitation.

[62] I acknowledge that during the course of counsels' oral submissions I actively pursued a discourse with counsel regarding the availability of a conditional sentence order in this matter. My objective was to obtain full oral submissions on that issue in order to consider same during the time that this sentencing decision was under reserve.

[63] Upon completion of my review of all of the sentencing considerations I concluded that a non-custodial sentence is not available. In my view, a conditional sentence (even one of greater duration than the institutional jail sentence to be imposed in this matter) would not satisfy the proportionality principle nor would it adequately reflect the weight of the non-restorative sentencing principles. Thus, a conditional sentence order would not be "consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2" of our Criminal Code: 742.1(a).

[64] On the assault with a weapon charge the sentence that I intend to impose on the next return date is 225 days less 23 days credit for her pre-sentence custody (15 actual days enhanced to 23 days credit), and less 15 days for her bail conditions (principally the July 7, 2016 Recognizance-daily curfew and reporting): R. v. Downes, 2006 OJ 555 OCA, R. v. Green, 2017 OJ 1505 OCA. That leaves a further 187 days of custody left to be served on that count. On the return date she will be sentenced to 30 days in custody (served concurrently to the assault with a weapon sentence) on the breach of probation charge.

[65] A DNA order, and a section 110 weapons' prohibition order for 10 years, will be imposed on the assault charge when she is sentenced on the next date.

[66] As well, on the next date a section 743.21 order will be made prohibiting her from having any contact or communication with Korine Cunliffe, direct or indirectly, by any physical, electronic means or otherwise during the custodial portion of her sentences.

[67] There will be an 18 month probation order imposed on the next date, the terms of which are as follows:

1. Report immediately in person to your probation officer and thereafter as directed by your probation officer;

2. You shall notify the court or your probation officer, in advance, of any change of your name or address;

3. You shall notify the court or your probation officer, promptly, of any change of your employment or occupation;

4. You shall attend and participate in such assessment, counselling and rehabilitative programs as directed by your probation officer and that shall include for substance abuse issues, mental health issues, anger management issues, and such other programs as directed by your probation officer. You shall provide proof of your successful completion of those programs to the satisfaction of your probation officer. You shall also sign all forms as directed by your probation officer for those purposes and to monitor your attendance and progress;

5. You shall not possess any weapons as those are defined in the Criminal Code of Canada;

6. You shall have no contact or communication with Korine Cunliffe, direct or indirectly, by any physical, electronic means or otherwise and at all times you must remain at least 100 metres away from her person, place of residence, schooling, training or employment except as required for your court appearances;

7. You shall not possess or consume any alcohol or other intoxicating substances;

8. You shall not buy, possess or consume any illicit drugs as those are defined in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act except with a lawful prescription issued in your name or those available over the counter;

9. You shall have no contact or communication with anyone objected to in writing by your probation officer; and,

10. You shall reside at a residence approved of by your probation officer and you shall not change that residence without the prior written approval of your probation officer.

[68] A breach of probation offence carries a maximum sentence of 4 years in prison.

[69] As noted, the actual imposition of the sentences will occur on the next court date so as to allow Ms. Cardinal some time to arrange her affairs before going into custody.

Dated: April 13, 2018

Justice A.G. Letourneau